Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michail Nikolaev
Subject Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not?
Date
Msg-id CANtu0ojmt_yQ7DrsEBfoO0vjWRwA6oH7_HR-eMiT4MrFvHp2VA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not?  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not?
List pgsql-hackers
Hello, Michael!

> Could you summarize here what you have done to achieve test
>  stabilization in your new patch set posted at [1] without using the
>  proposal of this thread?

Mostly idea is next:

Let's imagine we have two steps - step_before and step_after which may end in either order.
Then instead of such step/markers structure:

        step_before(step_after)
        stepN
        stepN+1
        step_after

use the next:

        step_before
        stepN
        stepN+1
        step_after(step_before)


In the first case, there are two possible results:
1) step_before is finished before step_after - reported as step_before, step_after
2) step_after is launched before step_before ends - reported as step_after, step_before

But in the case second variant:
1) step_before is finished before step_after - reported as step_before, step_after
2) step_after is launched before step_before ends - reported as step_before, step_after

So, the second option provides the same result regardless of order of finishing of step_before and step_after, which is the thing I want to achieve here.

Best regards,
Mikhail.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Old BufferDesc refcount in PrintBufferDescs and PrintPinnedBufs
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Old BufferDesc refcount in PrintBufferDescs and PrintPinnedBufs